guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Bestiary
So what's the basic information that every beast/monster/mob/lunchbox should have? Thinking things like: * list of skills it is known to possess * tactics the enemy uses (Plague Devourers will ALWAYS corpse bomb, frex) * type of "collector item" it drops (Fetid Carapace, Enchanted Lodestone, etc) which should link to related collector database * the enemy's class; giant, dwarf, Charr, and so on * possibly a wiki-created subtype such as "healer" or "melee fighter" * primary damage type/weapon * zones it's located in * a nice clean screenshot and/or text description Not sure how it would all look, mind. First step is figuring out all the needed information.. Nunix We can add Vulnerabilities and Resistances as well. Adam re: Bestiary Hi Nunix, yeah that sounds pretty good. I'll try making a Beast box template, like the skill box, a little later on. Since that only needs the most relevant information I'm not sure which parts it should contain. Some parts are pretty obvious. * the name of the creature * an image of the creature * the species of the creature * the profession of the creature (rather than use wiki created subtypes we could just link them to their actual profession, since all creatures in guild wars relate to one of the 6 professions, that's how signet of capture works) Other than that I don't know what else should go in there. I suppose what skills the creature uses could go in there, and what items they drop, but since this information could be exhaustive we might find one creature with a load of skills and items, making the skill box take up half a page ;) so really i think this information is best left to the detail of the article. As a kind of side note, I realised there was no documentation on how to write skill articles, so I wrote GuildWiki:Style & Formatting and GuildWiki:Style & Formatting/Skills. They are far from complete, but perhaps once we formalise what should go in your average Beast article we could put it in GuildWiki:Style & Formatting/Bestiary or GuildWiki:Style & Formatting/Beasts. - LordBiro beast box I've added a very minimal beast box to Charr Ashen Claw. I don't know if it should contain anything else or whether the other details should be in the article itself. Also, I was just thinking, should Shining Blade/White Mantle/Bandits be under Bestiary? Are they really beasts? ;) hehe, I guess they should be, but it made me laugh for a bit :D Well, yeah, Bestiary is just a generic term, really. Should also make sure we make notes about names mobs somehow... their own seperate pages? Or is that overkill? Gravewit well, in theory at least i do agree they should have their own pages. I mean, the alternative is that we list them all on one page, and that it grows to an enormous unmanageable size! I mean the armor collectors page is growing quite big now, but there is no real way of splitting that up. I think having smaller (even near-empty) articles is preferrable to one unmanageable article, where possible. - LordBiro Armor collectors split Moved to the appropo place by Gravewit. Species categories? I'm kind of ambivalent on this one. On one hand, you can see all of the members types of the species in the category interface. On the other hand, we're going to have a zillion different categories, one for each species, and this list is only going to increase as we gain expansions. Adam Well, I think that's the point of this whole thing, yeah? A titanic copendium of all things Guild Wars. I definately want to do a taxonomy sort of thing. We'd be crazy not to. I say, just Category:SpeciesName and Category:Species on the SpeciesName pages. Gravewit Also, RE: Known Habitats, I think we should try to list level ranges, too. Gravewit Hey Gravewit, I had started something similar, Charr Ashen Claw is in the Category:Charr and Category:Charr is in Category:Bestiary. I also started Category:Humans. At the moment it looks like this (The categories are in red because they have no description, they all do currently exist though)... + Category:Bestiary | +--+ Category:Charr | | | +--+ Charr Ashen Claw | +--+ Category:Humans | +--+ Category:Ascalons | | | +--+ Prince Rurik or something | +--+ Category:Shining Blade | | | +--+ Some shining blade character, I dunno, Carlotte the spider maybe | +--+ Category:White Mantle | +--+ White Mantle Abbot | +--+ White Mantle Seeker Obviously not all of the articles are there, but the structure is as shown at the moment. - LordBiro 20:28, 19 May 2005 (EST) Beast Box Redux After a bit of a discussion with Karlos last night, I thought that this should be brought up as it it already out of hand and we seem to have no set way of handling it. First though I wish to apologize to Karlos for anything that I may have said to him. I have no excuse beyond some inebriation and depression as I had just gotten done celebrating my 30th birthday. The format for the image in the beast box is all over the place on the wiki right now. I just finished a semi-random poll of creature pages and will post the results below. First here is how I did this poll (in case anyone cares to know): I started in Category:Bestiary and just went down the sub-category list clicking on each entry. If an entry had a Beast Box with a picture then I checked the code and placed it in one of four categories for this poll: *Mouse Over w/no Caption ( ) *Caption w/no Mouse Over ( ) *Caption and Mouse Over ( ) *No Caption and No Mouse Over ( ) I did not pick and chose to support my side of the argument, I went strictly down the list, I did not use any duplicate entries for creatures in multiple categories: ex. Flint Fleshcleaver was only counted once not twice (in Bosses and Dwarves\Stone Summit). I counted the first 100 examples that I came across that fit the criteria and here are the results: *Mouse Over w/no Caption: 62% *Caption w/no Mouse Over: 28% *Caption and Mouse Over: 6% *No Caption and No Mouse Over: 4% I would like for us to come to a decision on how how we are going to handle this issue so that we can make the appropriate corrections and go forward in a unified fasion. My personal thought is that as there is already a spot for the creature's name above the picture, having it show up as a caption to the picture is pointless and can lead to data errors. I'm indifferent to the mouse over option, as I was only using it because it was in the majority of the creature articles that I had seen when I started adding pictures/creating new entries. I am curious to hear what other users think. --Rainith 08:27, 19 Sep 2005 (EST) Edit - I forgot to mention, I'd say there is a margin of error of +/- 3% for my poll. It wasn't exactly exciting to do, and I may have put things in the wrong category a couple of times. --Rainith 08:46, 19 Sep 2005 (EST) :I'm quite indifferent here. As you said, the name of the creature is already there, so we don't need it another time - neither as caption nor as mouse-over (actually, in terms of HTML, that would be the "title" attribute; mouse-over is done with java-script). But this issue doesn't affect data integrity in any way (well, maybe in such as whoever creates a new entry and copies the code from an existing one may forget to overwrite the name. I'm probably not the only one to whom this has happened ;) ). It's more like a display glitch. Of course it would be nice if everything looked the same, that's why we have a template after all. So I'd say, just stick with #1 (Mouse Over w/no Caption) because the most are already that way. Less work fixing. ;) I've been adding entries like #2 (Caption w/no Mouse Over) lately, but as I said, I don't really have any preference. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 08:59, 19 Sep 2005 (EST) ::Me too, I do not care one way or the other. I was simply defending the template. I say out with both of them, the caption and the hover. ::Now since we are talking about redoing the beast box.. How about what I did with the beast template? Instead of using 7 or 8 templates, we use one. You can see it here: Template:BeastInfo and you can see a sample in White Mantle Abbot. Simple, elegant, one and a half lines of text. :) Please let me know your thoughts. I know it's going to be a HUGE pain to change all the beasts, but we can do it in time. For now, I suggest we use this for new beasts and then convert the old ones perhaps one species at a time. ::I also believe the same can be done for the Skills templates and the item templates. --Karlos 16:39, 19 Sep 2005 (EST) :::I like the new template. Less lines of code are always an improvement. Somebody has done a new template similar to this for skills already, I think. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 17:51, 19 Sep 2005 (EST) ::::I don't care. Most of the time I use neither caption nor mouse-over, because all the information I need is already in the box title. However, I think it won't hurt to leave the options in the template, in case somebody wants to use them. If we remove one of them, then we should remove the caption, but leave the mouse-over. --Tetris L 18:01, 19 Sep 2005 (EST) :::::Kudos to you Karlos! :) I like the new template, my only complaint is that it still has the creature name showing twice, once in the box on top (which I like) and once right under the picture (which I think looks ugly). But at least now we won't have one creature name on top and a different one underneath as they both pull from the same variable. So that would be my only suggestion, remove the ugly (IMO) name field from under the picture, and then we can start going through and changing all the creatures to this new format. If noone else feels that the second name is an issue, I'll STFU and we can still go and start making the changes. :) --Rainith 04:37, 20 Sep 2005 (EST) ::::::I don't see the second name field as an issue, but I agree we don't need it and wouldn't object to removing it. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 05:17, 20 Sep 2005 (EST) :::::::I don't see it as an issue any more as it will always be the same as the name above it. I just see it as unnecessary and I don't find it aestheticly pleasing. --Rainith 06:21, 20 Sep 2005 (EST) ::Ok, I removed the caption from the BeastInfo template since all those who care about it, want to see it gone and the rest just don't care. We can't do the same with the old template because the many pages that DO provide a caption will now show messy data (the image will have "caption =" under it). ::Is everyone in favor of swtiching to the new template? And before ratifying it, is there anything else we could possibly conceive that should go into it? --Karlos 07:29, 20 Sep 2005 (EST) :::I think it looks great now. :) This should also clear up the few instances of people changing the colors of the box to reflect the class of the creature. I vote that we institute this change post haste. --Rainith 07:48, 20 Sep 2005 (EST) ::::I've started to go through and change the beast boxes. So far I've completed Category:Behemoths, Category:Centaurs, Category:Charr, Category:Demons, Category:Devourers and Category:Dragons. I'll work on more later on Saturday. --Rainith 17:11, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)